Texas ALJ Grants Additional Time For PUC Staff To Comment On Merits Of Aspire Re-pricing Complaint (Staff Had Already Recommended Dismissal On Procedural Grounds)
September 10, 2019 Email This Story Copyright 2010-19 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • firstname.lastname@example.org
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
A Texas PUC ALJ granted a motion from Commission Staff to extend the time to file comments on the merits of a complaint filed by Aspire Commodities, LLC ("Aspire") against ERCOT, in which Aspire has sought an order directing ERCOT to re-price the published settlement prices for interval 14:50 on May 30, 2019
In light of Staff's recommendation that the complaint be dismissed, Staff sought an extension of the deadline for filing comments regarding Aspire's complaint
Staff had said, "Staff requests an extension to allow for a decision on ERCOT's motion to dismiss the complaint. Staff believes it is necessary to consider whether Aspire's complaint is dismissed before providing comments on the merits of Aspire's complaint. As a result, Staff requests an extension of time until November 5, 2019."
Previously, on August 9, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had issued Order No. 2 requiring Staff to file a response to ERCOT's motion to dismiss by August 23, 2019 and comments regarding Aspire's complaint by September 9, 2019
The ALJ granted Commission Staff's motion for an extension and directed that, "By November 5, 2019,
Commission Staff must comments [sic] regarding Aspire's complaint."
Aspire had objected to the sought extension.
Among other reasons for opposing the extension, Aspire alleged that the delay would pose challenges to providing relief if the complaint is ultimately decided in Aspire's favor
"Aspire's complaint to the Commission, as filed and amended states that relief is
requested expeditiously, as any relief granted may be less effective the longer it is delayed.
While Staff's comments are not necessary for the Commission to rule on this complaint, Staff's
delay in filing its comments is likely to delay the requested relief and lessen its likelihood of
feasibly being implemented. Any delay in granting relief stands to uniquely harm Market
Participants and Aspire," Aspire said
"The chance for harm is presented in two ways. First, a delay in commenting and
ruling until after the end of summer could lead to a different make up of ERCOT Market
Participants. Market Participants come and go from the ERCOT, and delaying a ruling could
have the effect of enforcing a ruling against Market Participants who are no longer in the market
or are no longer solvent. Second, delaying a ruling and repricing until the winter decreases the
likelihood that the derivatives or futures markets, like ICE, will reset their pricing. A delay of
this kind by Staff is extremely likely to bar the relief sought by Aspire and could have been filed
in order to achieve that end," Aspire said